Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments/Privatemusings

Thoughts from Privatemusings
First, thanks to SB for unblocking me - I'm pleased to be able to participate here, and in WikiVersity in general (I'm not the most active, but I've enjoyed my time here for a couple of years now, and do intend to continue participation, hopefully).

I support the new project / page name (from 'ethical breaching' to 'the ethics of....') - and hope that a few of the people who have commented here are up for signing up or just generally helping out - a few folk have mentioned that they feel it would be useful if I said a few words about my intent when I started the project - I kinda feel that this diff (the start of the page) sums it up. It seems to me that the 'possibly execute' bit I mentioned there is what has caused the most trouble - I'm happy to see that gone from the current project, and (as I mentioned over on en) I think the project is going to develop slowly, and everything will be discussed out in the open - to be clear though, I have absolutely no plans to encourage / enable / design / execute / get involved in any way with any breaching experiments.

In regard to Jimbo's ations - I received a short email from him after he blocked me, which I'm yet to respond to - I think he's been hasty here, and I hope the entire situation will now calm a little, and talk of closing wikiversity etc. can move on to more productive discussions.

Finally, I'd like to encourage anyone from board member to curious lurker to pop in to my talk page at any time if you have any questions / concerns / ideas / advice etc. etc. - I've promised for quite a while that I'll stop absolutely anything that I'm doing and listen and discuss concerns. I'm also committed to abiding by any consensus. Perhaps reiterating these extant committments will help those still worried to feel that there's a positive way forward. Cheers, Privatemusings 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * just a quick note to say that I also replied to Jimbo via email. Privatemusings 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is equally alarming to me to read this evidence of Privatemusing attempting to negotiate an outcome and state his/her case, but Jimbo has desysoped SBJ and undone the steps he took to bring PrivateMusing's back into the discussion! I am trying to read through all this as objectively as possible, and what I notice more than anything is a clear majority rejects Jimbo's actions and calls for a different approach to deleting, blocking and banning. I think it is evident that such actions produce the malcontent known by Jimbo and others as "trolling", and perhaps Wikipedia and other's need to reflect on their actions and how they perhaps create the problems they are trying to deal with. To this end, I feel Jimbo needs give some ground here in this debate. So far he has repetatively held to the points he made from the beginning, and appears not to be taking in any of the reasonable arguments pitched to him. Thanks to Sj for his comments of reassurance and ability to make constructive suggestions --Leighblackall 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)